databases_update_collection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update a collection' which implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently states the core action. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Update a collection'), though it could be more structured by including key details. There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for its minimal content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of updating a database collection with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety hints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Collection name. Max length: 128 chars.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a collection'), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'databases_update' or 'databases_update_document', which also perform updates on different resources. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for updating various database components (e.g., 'databases_update_document', 'databases_update_attribute'), the description offers no context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.